Plan B Forum

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:01 pm**

_________________________________
"Boehner's Plan B fiscal cliff bill pulled amid dissension in GOP caucus"
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/politics/ ... index.html
"Washington (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner's proposal to avert the looming fiscal cliff's automatic tax increases failed to curry enough Republican support Thursday night, after which Congress left for the holiday with no clear end in sight in the high-stakes debate.

Boehner said earlier Thursday that he was confident that his so-called Plan B -- which would extend tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end for most people while allowing rates to increase to 1990s levels on income over $1 million -- would pass the House, and in the process put pressure on President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate. But his gambit seemed in doubt later as Republican leaders struggled to get most all their members to sign on -- even enlisting senators like Sen. Rob Portman, to work the House floor -- knowing the chamber's Democrats oppose it.

Then, around 8 p.m., House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced that the measure would not go up for a vote as planned.

"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator (Harry) Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.""
_________________________________

Boehner has discovered that the GOP extremists will block any compromise, even one which was grotesquely lopsided in favor of the rich, so Obama can wait until the tax code changes and all the Republican-written-and-passed bills which will cause the tax breaks to expire take effect (top line in chart). And then counter with a tax cut bill which will benefit the bottom 95-99% +* of taxpayers.

Republicans can then either vote to deny tax cuts to most of their constituents or get out front with the fact that they govern solely for the top 1-2% and can't wait to screw everybody else.

The fringe-right takeover has made the GOP irrelevent.

yrs,
rubato

* Actually it will benefit all of them.

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:54 pm**

I was going to start a thread about this....

A week ago when Boehner finally offered to accept the principle of a rate increase, and Obama immediately countered with an offer to raise the income threshold for the tax increase from 250,000 to 400,000 and also included a package of spending cut proposals that got his position down to 1.2 trillion in revenue and up to 900 billion in cuts....

For one brief shining moment I thought, "Okay, good, it looks like maybe the basis for reaching a deal is coming together. Now there's a basis for serious negotiation. Move these proposals closer together until you reach a 1-1 correspondence of cuts to revenue, and there will be the peace."

But it was not to be....

I was extremely disheartened by what happened yesterday....

Not only did Boehner have his legs cut out from under him (after announcing at a press conference that the House would definitely pass this plan, something he should never have done unless he knew for an ironclad fact that he had the votes) but it wasn't just Boehner; the entire GOP leadership including Cantor and Paul Ryan had signed on to this, (hell, even Grover Norquist said he didn't have a problem with it.) and still there was a block of GOP representatives large enough that will vote to oppose any tax rate increase under any circumstances who were willing to give the entire leadership the finger....

Look, as I've made clear, I don't believe that raising tax rates on anyone will do anything positive for the economy. (It never has before) But the political reality is that there's a party that controls the Presidency and the Senate that for whatever reason is hell bent for leather to do this, and that being the case, the objective has to be to cut a deal that will minimize the damage of the tax increase, and hopefully get enough in terms of spending cuts and pro-growth polices to actually do some good.

The alternative is that a lot more taxes are going to go up on a lot more people. Why there's a group in the House that apparently can't see this is beyond me.

Exactly how large this group is isn't precisely known but a good guess would be somewhere around 30 members. Boehner could have lost 23 votes from his caucus, and still had the 218 he needed for passage. (Actually he could have gotten by with a little less, because there were 4 or 5 Democrats that were expected to break ranks and vote for the bill.)

30-35 members out of a caucus of 241 in House hardly represents a "take over of the Republican Party" it doesn't even come close to representing a "take over" of the House GOP Caucus....

But it's sufficient to hold the caucus hostage and call the tune on a largely party-line vote...

There's been a lot of talk about what "the way forward" is in the wake of this....

Personally, I think the focus of the negotiations at this point need to shift from the House to the Senate... (At his press conference today, Boehner himself kind of hinted that this might be the thing to do)

Working with the leadership of both parties in the Senate, and using Obama's second proposal as a starting point, it ought to be possible for serious minded people to hammer a compromise that would attract significant bi-partisan support . A bill that passes the Senate with, 70 plus votes, endorsed by Obama, should then create enough support in the House from both parties to win passage. (though you'll have plenty on both the left and the right voting against it.)

I frankly don't at this point see how this scenario can play out before Jan. 1st, but this is how I see a package finally being passed. The Senate is going to have to take the ball, and impose discipline on the House.

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:59 am**

There are t least three parties in the House of Representatives:

The Democrats, The Republicans, And The Tea Party. The Grover Norquist nutball tax pledgers (all Republicans) represent a fourth force which trumps the Republican leadership.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:24 am**

____________________________________
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-gop-poli ... itics.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans seem shocked by their party's meltdown on the so-called fiscal cliff. They shouldn't be.

The uncompromising conservatives who blocked Speaker John Boehner's tax bill were merely sticking to policies that Boehner and nearly all other GOP leaders have pushed, without reservation, for years: It's always wrong to raise tax rates on anyone, no matter how rich. The nation's big deficit is entirely "a spending problem, not a revenue problem." And in any deficit-reduction plan, spending cuts must overwhelm new revenues, by 10-to-1 if not more."

....

"It's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party," he said, "and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can't even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we're putting forward. If you're not a governing majority, you're not going to be a majority very long."

Republican consultant and writer Craig Shirley told The Washington Post: "The national GOP is now simply a collection of warring tribal factions."

________________________

Wrong on taxes. Wrong on Women's rights. Wrong on Gay rights. Wrong on Gun Nuts. Wrong on Immigration. Wrong on evolution. Wrong on Global warming. Wrong on the economy. Wrong on science.

Increasingly marginalized.

Its kind of fun watching them melt down. Now that they are powerless.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:56 pm**

I guess there are no adults interested in joining this discussion....

I should have gone with my initial impulse and started a new thread about this, rather than post my analysis as a follow up in one of rube's troll threads. (Won't make that mistake again.)

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:28 pm**

There really isn't anything to disagree with Jim. My only addition was the whole "Plan B" idea was meaningless theater that cost time and added nothing to the discussion. Heck one could even see it as a weakening of the GOPs position in that they are willing to cede that "for nothing" making their position in the "grand deal" (which must come sooner or later) weaker.

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:47 pm**

Crackpot wrote:the whole "Plan B" idea was meaningless theater

I'm gonna save that quote and use it out of context at some random future time.

As for the subject of the thread, though they've each stated it somewhat differently, rubato and Lord Jim are both right and haven't given us anything to argue about. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next. The fact that the President has his party behind him but the Speaker doesn't would seem to strengthen Obama's hand.

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:16 pm**

I saw an interview on Friday with a GOP Congressman from South Carolina, (his name escapes me at the moment) that was quite depressing, because it showed me that the man, (and presumably other representatives) simply do not understand how this process works, and what the purpose of the "Plan B" vote actually was.

He said would have voted against it, not because it was a tax increase, (which it wasn't) but because it didn't "solve the problem"...

Well pal, of course that proposal "wouldn't solve the problem"...

It wasn't designed to solve the problem; it was never intended as some sort of comprehensive final tax and spending plan...we're not at the point in this process where any existing proposal is going to meet that criteria...

But that doesn't mean it was meaningless; it had a very important purpose, as a tactical move in the process of getting to a final proposal...

The purpose was to strengthen Boehner's hand and to show him as an interlocutor in this negotiation who could deliver on a final proposal. It would have demonstrated that Boehner could get an overwhelming vote from his caucus, (enough even without Democratic votes) that would include some sort of tax rate increase, because they would already have crossed The Rubicon by voting to allow the rate increase for at least the million dollar and above income level.

Instead, the opposite has now been demonstrated.

Had this passed, the House and Boehner would have remained the primary focus for working out a final deal with the White House. Now that will of necessity, shift to the Senate.

Does this guy from South Carolina really believe that a final proposal worked out in the Senate, with both Republicans and Democrats, will be more to his liking than one that could have been negotiated by Boehner?

Though apparently he doesn't realize it, this character not only pulled the rug out from under Boehner, he (and the other like minded 30-40 dodos) pulled the rug out from under themselves, and whatever influence they might have had on the process...

Like I said...depressing....

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:03 am**

Lord Jim wrote:The purpose was to strengthen Boehner's hand and to show him as an interlocutor in this negotiation who could deliver on a final proposal. It would have demonstrated that Boehner could get an overwhelming vote from his caucus, (enough even without Democratic votes) that would include some sort of tax rate increase, because they would already have crossed The Rubicon by voting to allow the rate increase for at least the million dollar and above income level.

But a large chunk of the Republican caucus does not want a final proposal. They know that there is no chance that they will get what they want -- no tax increase in any amount on anyone at any time for any reason -- so they would rather junk the whole idea than compromise.

Indeed, what they really want is not just no tax increases ever, no matter what. What they really want is to wreck the US government.

They believe that their mission is to burn down the house. Lamentably, we all live in the house. But they don't care.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:57 am**

The failure of John Boehner and his "Plan B" theater piece show him to be a completely ineffective leader. He can't cut a deal with Obama, and he can't even get his own party behind him on a vote that was purely for show. I'm waiting to see if the long knives come out when the next Congress convenes; Eric Cantor's succession to the Speaker's chair will be remarkable if for no other reason than he starts out as even more hateful than Cryin' John.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:25 pm**

The failure of John Boehner and his "Plan B" theater piece show him to be a completely ineffective leader.

In fairness to Boehner on that point, it has become increasingly difficult in recent years for any House party leader to effectively "whip" their members. Many of the traditional tools of reward and punishment that have traditionally been used to do this have either been eliminated or greatly reduced.

Because of the deficit and the tightness of the budget, there are no where near as many "goodies" to bestow or withhold as there used to be. Pretty much gone are the days where a party leader could round up a vote by threatening to prevent a bridge or a project from being located in that representatives district.

Also, with the elimination of "earmarks" the leverage of allowing or removing those has been eliminated.

On top of this, Boehner has the additional problem that the block of 30-40 hardcore problem reps he has in the caucus were by and large never the choice of the national party, didn't receive much support, and therefore feel no sense of debt or relationship to the leadership.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:49 pm**

Now they just take away the money required to run a campaign...

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:46 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:
The failure of John Boehner and his "Plan B" theater piece show him to be a completely ineffective leader.
In fairness to Boehner on that point, it has become increasingly difficult in recent years for any House party leader to effectively "whip" their members. Many of the traditional tools of reward and punishment that have traditionally been used to do this have either been eliminated or greatly reduced.

This was a vote that was entirely symbolic and had no chance of ever becoming law; it was supposed to be a show of solidarty among the GOP and an opportunity to say, "Well, at least we passed something, and it's the President's/Democrats' fault for rejecting it." No matter how you slice it, Boehner now has a very serious credibility problem.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:17 pm**

I've been thinking about this bloc of "bitterenders" in the GOP Caucus, and speculating over what motivates them...

I think it's probably a mixed bag....

I think some of them may just not be the brightest bulb on the tree and not understand the situation, and some of them may be so naive that they think that if they just hold out long enough, they'll get everything they want....

But I think there are also some who really aren't that dumb, or detached from reality....

I think some may be acting in a more cynical and calculated fashion. I think there are probably some who understand the situation perfectly well, but who have decided that it would be better for ther own personal political situation, to let the Senate and the White House hammer out a deal, even if that deal is worse from their ideological perspective than one that could have been achieved by Boehner.

I believe these folks would rather have a worse deal that they wouldn't have to vote for in order for it to pass, (since a deal worked out between the President and the Senate would get a large number Democratic votes in the House) rather than a better deal that could have been worked out by Boehner, that they would have to vote for.

They'd rather see a worse package passed that they didn't have to vote for rather than a better one that they did, because being able to say that they never voted for any tax rate increase is something that they see as important to their own personal political longevity, (probably because of fear of a primary challenge) and they rank that above what would be best for the country.

If find that sort of thing far more disgusting than I do those who are acting on honest principle, but just may not be too bright, or blinded by naive beliefs about how this is going to come out.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:22 pm**

A Holiday Letter from John Boehner

Posted: **Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:23 am**

At this point, even Cantor doesn't want the job...

No one is challenging Boehner for the Speakership, because no serious politician on the Republican side wants the job...

And who can blame them...

Aside from the ceremonial importance of it; holding a Constitutional Office, Third In Line for The Presidency,

And the perks....

A really big corner office in The Capitol, round the clock Secret Service protection, and your own plane...(the plane thing began under Denny Hastert, was continued under Pelosi, and Boehner to his credit has eschewed that perk ...)

There's really not much value in being Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, from a political power standpoint....

Gone are the days of Lyndon Johnson as Senate Majority Leader and Sam Rayburn as Speaker of The House, when they could flip a vote simply by registering their disapproval...(or even using out and out black mail to get a rep or Senator to toe the line)

The irony is, that all the efforts to "clean up the process" and eliminate the "backroom deals", haven't improved the quality of governance...

Quite the contrary....

All this has served to do is to take power out of the hands of people who knew what they were doing, and concentrate more of it in the hands of those who don't...

And the country has not been well served by it...

This unhelpful process didn't start with the GOP; it began in the first post Watergate by-election in 1974, and it's been getting nothing but worse ever since...

The simple uncomfortable, un-"PC" fact of the matter is, that the well being of the country would be better served if we could go back to the cigar chomping, back room, back slapping days of yesteryear, rather than this updated version of a 1960's-70s era Italian Parliament that we have today...

Posted: **Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:01 am**

The Speaker of the House of Commons is the presiding officer of the House of Commons, the United Kingdom's lower chamber of Parliament. The current Speaker is John Bercow, who was elected on 22 June 2009, following the resignation of Michael Martin. He was returned as an MP in the 2010 general election and was re-elected as Speaker when the House sat at the start of the new Parliament on 18 May 2010.

The Speaker presides over the House's debates, determining which members may speak. The Speaker is also responsible for maintaining order during debate, and may punish members who break the rules of the House. Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office. The Speaker does not take part in debate nor vote (except to break ties, and even then, subject to conventions that maintain his or her non-partisan status). Aside from duties relating to presiding over the House, the Speaker also performs administrative and procedural functions, and remains a constituency Member of Parliament (MP). The Speaker has the right and obligation to reside in the Parliamentary estate, near to Big Ben.

The office of Speaker is almost as old as Parliament itself. The earliest year for which a presiding officer has been identified is 1258, when Peter de Montfort presided over the Parliament held in Oxford. Early presiding officers were known by the title parlour or prolocutor. The continuous history of the office of Speaker is held to date from 1376 (see definitive studies by the late Professor JS Roskell) when Sir Peter de la Mare spoke for the commons in the "Good Parliament" as they joined leading magnates in purging the chief ministers of the Crown and the most unpopular members of the king's household. Edward III was frail and in seclusion, his prestigious eldest son, Edward the Black Prince, terminally ill. It was left to the next son, a furious John of Gaunt, to fight back. He arrested De la Mare and disgraced other leading critics. In the next, "Bad Parliament", in 1377, a cowed Commons put forward Gaunt's steward, Thomas Hungerford, as their spokesman in retracting their predecessors' mis-actions of the previous year. Gaunt evidently wanted a 'mirror-image' as his form of counter-coup and this notion, born in crisis, of one 'speaker', who quickly also became 'chairman' and organiser of the Commons' business, was recognised as valuable and took immediate root after 1376-7.

Under the new system, candidates must be nominated by at least twelve members, of whom at least three must be of a different party from the candidate. Each member may nominate no more than one candidate. The House then votes by secret ballot; an absolute majority (in the UK sense, i.e. more than 50% of the votes cast) is required for victory. If no candidate wins a majority, then the individual with the fewest votes is eliminated, as are any candidates who receive less than five percent of the votes cast. The House continues to vote, for several rounds if necessary, until one member receives the requisite majority. Then, the House votes on a formal motion to appoint the member in question to the Speakership. (In the unlikely event that this motion fails, the House must hold a fresh series of ballots on all of the nominees.)

If only one candidate is nominated, then no ballot is held, and the House proceeds directly to the motion to appoint the candidate to the Speakership. A similar procedure is used if a Speaker seeks a further term after a general election: no ballot is held, and the House immediately votes on a motion to re-elect the Speaker. If the motion to re-elect the Speaker fails, candidates are nominated, and the House proceeds with voting (as described above).

Upon the passage of the motion, the Speaker-elect is expected to show reluctance at being chosen; he or she is customarily "dragged unwillingly" by MPs to the Speaker's bench. This custom has its roots in the Speaker's original function of communicating the Commons' opinions to the monarch. Historically, the Speaker, representing the House to the Monarch, potentially faced the Monarch's anger and therefore required some persuasion to accept the post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of ... Kingdom%29

Posted: **Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:17 am**

No matter how you slice it, Boehner now has a very serious credibility problem.

I wouldn't deny that for a moment.

And Boehner is certainly not blameless on that score. (Especially when he went out on national television and announced that the House would definitely pass his proposal...As I said, no Party Leader should do that, unless they knew for a fact they had the votes in hand...For that cock up, Boehner has no one to blame but himself...that was all on him...)

I'm just pointing out the fact that there are systemic issues in the way that the House operates today that Boehner can't be blamed for...

Posted: **Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:00 pm**

Maybe I should know this, but if the majority of the Rs are willing to do a deal in the House, and a majority of the D's in the House will go along, then why can't they do the deal and the outliers are out of luck? Do the R's have a deal that they will only decide things as a caucus? Or are the House D's not going along with the compromise?

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:45 am**

The Republican party is terminally broken.

The extreme right has taken over and made it impossible for the former leadership to lead.

They can 'recalibrate' on some issues like illegal immigration (and give up the technique of whipping up hatred and fear against foreigners which has stood them in good, if loathsomely slimy, stead.). But they have a harder time on things like hating homosexuals which their RW-base don't want to give up. And it is very difficult for them to admit total stupidity on global warming, even though the evidence says so, and shift back to something less stupid.

But the moronic Grover Norquist tax pledge is an anchor they have to cut loose or admit they have no business running anything.

And they are too weak to do that.

yrs,
rubato

Plan B Forum

Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff.

Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff.

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff

Re: Boehner loses control..extreme right throw GOP off cliff